Thank goodness he didn't say at the end of the interview he wanted to go and find a red and blue club he wanted to build up.

We can count our blessings there

He really doesn't like Moody.

We changed our colours from claret and blue and we even changed our nickname to the 'Eagles' !

There is no doubt this is shrewd business man. He sees his investment as just that. The only 'personal' thing he has allowed is the alteration of the clubs colours.He states this as a traditional belief that blue is unlucky and red fortunate. If we think this is mumbo-jumbo than why should we care what colours our teams turn out in? For me the red and blue is a bit of betrayal as the original livery was claret and light blue, from the clours of Aston Villa way back when the club was founded. But the pity of it is more to do with tradition, and tradition is what much of what makes sense to us in all forms of life, from naming our kids to voting. But its his concern, he bought it.
But this lack of respect for the tradition and roots of this fiery old club seems to be the thing people sre bothered about. Although clubs are commercial affairs their whole existence and raison d'etre is this love and tradition held by those who support the club. Without that support a club would be nothing. Even manure fans and all of their superficial leanings to glory have reservations in this matter. They may be commercially successful but this will not hide the fact every fan sees his team as something much more. For Mr Tan to be accepted and to being popular relies on him un derstanding this.
Conversely, our board are very much into the ethos of tradition and love of the club. I think we're lucky, even if it means we may not achieve commercially.

Just bpick any bank or privatised utility

I like it thet red is lucky and blue isnt - hows that working out for you Vince ????

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

I think Adrian's post is a bit problematic.

>There is no doubt this is shrewd business man.

In his football-related dealings, I would say there is a serious amount of doubt. He has alienated his customer-base, allowed a key employee to mis-spend many millions of pounds (by his own admission) due to lack of oversight, and has fired his key management figure and replaced him with some who has 0 days experience working in the competitive environment in which he has been placed. Shrewd? Being a shrewd investor is not the same thing as being a shrewd football club owner.

>He sees his investment as just that.

Really? And his first step is pissing off the people who buy his product by changing its most fundamental aspect (the clubs identity and colours). Don't know about you, but that's not how I'd treat something if I saw it as an investment. In fact, I'd say he's treating like a toy that he can do anything he wants with. And, sadly, he can.

> If we think this is mumbo-jumbo than why should we care what colours our teams turn out in?

People care about the colour change because it bucks traditional identity, not because it's mumbo-jumbo. But even that is secondary. If the buying public express a desire for a certain type of product, only a fool would say "get lost...I'm going to sell you something that you don't want instead, just because I can."

My conclusion is that Tan has acted like an idiot. And it's about to cost him quite a lot of money.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.